Jonathan Cohn

Annnnnnd there it is: Moments ago, the U.S. Supreme Court finally issued their decision in the long-awaited "CA vs. TX" lawsuit...previously known as "Texas vs. Azar," "Texas vs. U.S." or, as I always preferred to call it, "Texas Fold'em," a term first invoked by University of Michigan law professor Nicholas Bagley just over three years ago.

Bottom Line: The case was basically thrown out for lack of standing, in a 7-2 decision, with Justice Breyer delivering the opinion of the court, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan (of course), but also Justices Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett and Thomas!

Justice Alito and Gorsuch dissented.

From the opinion itself:

Held: Plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge §5000A(a)’s minimum essential coverage provision because they have not shown a past or future injury fairly traceable to defendants’ conduct enforcing the specific statutory provision they attack as unconstitutional. Pp. 4–16.